Net neutrality takes a major leap today!

It's also caused many places to cut or limit how many hours you can work because of the mandate. I know first hand at my one job they cut the hours for part timers. (it's not my main job, but it was my summer fund job and cut down on the hours I could work) It's not all rainbows and butterflies. I think healthcare is something that is needed, but the way the Government implemented it is wrong, and like others have said is all about control. Obama wants nothing more than total control.

Poorly run businesses have always cut hours to avoid benefits. That will and has always happened regardless of obamacare. I do agree that healthcare is needed for all and I think obamacare definitely has room for improvement which is what I'd like to see both parties working on together. I'll disagree on Obama's desire for total control but I don't see much value added in our debating that.

Poorly run businesses have always cut hours to avoid benefits. That will and has always happened regardless of obamacare. I do agree that healthcare is needed for all and I think obamacare definitely has room for improvement which is what I'd like to see both parties working on together. I'll disagree on Obama's desire for total control but I don't see much value added in our debating that.

If a business is run solely to make as much money for the owner at the expense of others then they tend to avoid hours and benefits. If a business is run for reasons beyond strictly squeezing every penny they can out of it then they tend to exhibit a different behavior. A business can be successful for many including the workers who are actually doing work for the business and positively impact a community. There are just different philosophies on what success is.

Not in my book. It isn't how google or apple are run. But if you ever have one and the only way you can succeed is by short changing your workers for hours and benefits then congrats. You've run your ideal business.

Not in my book. It isn't how google or apple are run. But if you ever have one and the only way you can succeed is by short changing your workers for hours and benefits then congrats. You've run your ideal business.

Posted via the iMore App for Android

Just because someone has a job doesn't mean they're entitled to everything the government wants to gift them.

We just have completely different opinions on the topic. I can live with that.

Indeed

I don't envision the slippery slope you do.

sigh

But what I think it boils down to is you trust big business more than I do and I trust the government more than you do.

With *me*, it's not about trusting big business, but about not giving government too much power. Far too many people have forgotten how much clout they possess as consumers. If government takes over, we lose that clout.

No one is saying the companies don't have a right to profit. That isn't the argument.

Okay

The argument is do they have the right to even more profit by creating slow lanes for those sites who can't afford to pay extra.

Yes, they do. Just because people do not like it doesn't mean that they are not within their rights to do so. Should a person charge more for his or her jailbroken iPhone because it allows for more customization than a device that is not jailbroken?

The answer by about 75% of the population is no they don't.

They're wrong.

The internet isn't a privilege and wasn't created by those who profit from it. But it is a service you can pay for and we do.

You're the one who brought up "short changing" workers so I responded to that. You really needed me to tell you this?

I discussed businesses short changing workers and that wasn't new with obamacare. There have always been poorly run businesses. So yeah, since I never discussed free handouts from the government to replace the short changing not caused by obamacare you're going to have to fill me in. Because this is a new thing. Less tude would be nice too.

Thanks Indeed sigh With *me*, it's not about trusting big business, but about not giving government too much power. Far too many people have forgotten how much clout they possess as consumers. If government takes over, we lose that clout. Okay Yes, they do. Just because people do not like it doesn't mean that they are not within their rights to do so. Should a person charge more for his or her jailbroken iPhone because it allows for more customization than a device that is not jailbroken? They're wrong. Is it not a privilege to have access to that Internet service?

I'm happy to discuss this but don't give me the sighs and I'll do the same back. Deal?

Of course it isn't their right to do whatever they want to make profit. That isn't a right of anyone or any group or any company. There are rules to business. Some are old and some are new.

I'm not following the jail broken argument. That could very well be my fault but I'm not seeing the relevance.

I think those 75% are very correct in their assessment. We are not dealing with companies who invest in a better experience as much as they invest in limiting competition so they don't have to. Thy spend all their money and time trying to buy congress. Follow the money to see which party was paid the most to fight net neutrality. I did. These are not the pillars of a strong economy or capitalist democracy. Its ma bell part 2.

I'm happy to discuss this but don't give me the sighs and I'll do the same back. Deal?

Deal, but did you not take a shot when you mentioned me envisioning a slippery slope?

Of course it isn't their right to do whatever they want to make profit. That isn't a right of anyone or any group or any company. There are rules to business. Some are old and some are new.

I did not say that businesses had the right to do "whatever they want to make a profit". You mentioned companies not having the right to charge extra for faster speeds, and I disagreed and said that they did.

I'm not following the jail broken argument. That could very well be my fault but I'm not seeing the relevance.

If companies don't have a right to charge extra for additional benefits (in this case, faster internet speeds), then the average Joe shouldn't have a right to sell a jailbroken iPhone at a higher price than an iPhone that's not jailbroken. The seller considers a jailbroken iPhone an extra benefit.

I think those 75% are very correct in their assessment.

The 75% simply do not want to endure more fees, and it's understandable. However, just because 75% doesn't want it, it doesn't mean that the companies don't have a right to charge extra for faster speeds. Whether they should or should not charge extra is a different argument, and it does not negate the fact that they have a right to do so.

We are not dealing with companies who invest in a better experience as much as they invest in limiting competition so they don't have to.

You are letting your personal feelings cloud your judgment.

They spend all their money and time trying to buy congress.

Again, that is your personal opinion without a shed of proof.

personal Follow the money to see which party was paid the most to fight net neutrality. I did. These are not the pillars of a strong economy or capitalist democracy. Its ma bell part 2.

Deal, but did you not take a shot when you mentioned me envisioning a slippery slope?

I did not say that businesses had the right to do "whatever they want to make a profit". You mentioned companies not having the right to charge extra for faster speeds, and I disagreed and said that they did.

If companies don't have a right to charge extra for additional benefits (in this case, faster internet speeds), then the average Joe shouldn't have a right to sell a jailbroken iPhone at a higher price than an iPhone that's not jailbroken. The seller considers a jailbroken iPhone an extra benefit.

The 75% simply do not want to endure more fees, and it's understandable. However, just because 75% doesn't want it, it doesn't mean that the companies don't have a right to charge extra for faster speeds. Whether they should or should not charge extra is a different argument, and it does not negate the fact that they have a right to do so. You are letting your personal feelings cloud your judgment. Again, that is your personal opinion without a shed of proof. Even criminals have rights.

I'm actually not letting my personal feelings cloud my judgment. There is significant evidence which is transparent covering the level of expense paid out by the opponents of net neutrality to members of congress over the last three years and the voting records of those members. You can google or bing it. Its there and it is real.

I was being honest about the slippery slope but if it came off as condescending I apologize. You have been respectful and I meant no disrespect.

They aren't charging extra for faster speeds, they are creating slower speeds for those not willing to pay more. In my opinion it is a money grab and one they have no right to. They can sell that which they did not create or have IP in but I don't agree that they can choose what organizations they want to have faster or slower speeds. Remember the cost was only one part of it. They could also choose based on other considerations to not allow higher speeds.

Finally I would point out that our internet speeds lag behind Europe and China. This is readily available info for anyone who wants it. These companies are not spending their money on investing in the system. They are lobbying to keep their profits and not invest. Not emotional just the reality of a lazy private sector.

I did not say that businesses had the right to do "whatever they want to make a profit". You mentioned companies not having the right to charge extra for faster speeds, and I disagreed and said that they did.

Net neutrality is the notion that every one's data gets treated neutrally and equally, if its an email from grand ma or downloading your bank statement.

ISP's will not be able to decide who's data gets sent quicker, which sites get blocked and who must pay more.

Look at banking..... hedge fund managers will pay millions to get priority speed in their transactions. Is it bad for small banks and investors?... most definately.

What about startups or small businesses who need a fast internet in order to compete with larger companies?

Small to medium businesses will absolutely get crushed competitively by data speed charges that only mega corporations can afford.

I don't want a toll road on the internet... and neither should any of us.

Ok. I'll leave this as an open question for those who are bothered by net neutrality. What about keeping the internet the same as it has been since inception is bad? What worries you about that? How is allowing corporations who profit from the change and allowing them to choose what sites can be viewed with normal speeds and what sites can't a good thing? Do those who are against this feel breaking up ma bell was bad or good? Thanks.

Posted via the iMore App for Android

What Internet companies are doing that? It is a solution in search of a problem. And before you bring up Netflix... That was not traffic shaping. Netflix used Cogent to peer with ISPs. If Netflix wanted to be treated equal all that had to do is stop peering. Then take on all the costs of sending their traffic over transit.

Peering is a fundamental part of the Internet. I really hope the FCC regs don't screw with it.

Net neutrality is the notion that every one's data gets treated neutrally and equally, if its an email from grand ma or downloading your bank statement.

ISP's will not be able to decide who's data gets sent quicker, which sites get blocked and who must pay more.

Look at banking..... hedge fund managers will pay millions to get priority speed in their transactions. Is it bad for small banks and investors?... most definately.

What about startups or small businesses who need a fast internet in order to compete with larger companies?

Small to medium businesses will absolutely get crushed competitively by data speed charges that only mega corporations can afford.

I don't want a toll road on the internet... and neither should any of us.

Total confusion. What do you mean by toll road? Do you mean traffic shaping or peering? Neutrality means no shaping. Not sure what the FCC has to say about peering yet.

So do you mean peering? Peering helps small companies by freeing up the ISPs transit link. So for example if a company like Netflix is taking up a lot of bandwidth on the transit link the traffic can be moved off to a dedicated peering link.

A small and growing company may choose to use well peered content caching companies (Akamai) to improve capacity and latency to their customers. Once they get big enough they may choose to handle peering themselves. There is a growth path for the little guy.

Personally I think Netflix knew they needed to build out peering, but decided it was to costly or difficult so they high jacked the whole Not Neutrality movement. Not sure how it will help them unless the FCC intends to oversee peering agreements. I hope not. Even back in the day long distance phone "peering" would get overloaded on Mother's day. So AT&T calls may work, but some other LD carrier couldn't connect.

I don't think your concerns match up with keeping the internet the way it has always been and not allowing the comcasts of the world alter how quickly we can view the information we want. I don't want them telling me how quickly I can access the sites where I get my information. They have a vested interest in where I get information and what information I get. But we can agree to disagree as well.

Peering saved the Internet backbones. Back in the 90's AOL bought ANSNet so they could bring their content closer to the customer. We all benefited from that. It reduced congestion on the tier 1 backbones. Much of the popular content people see on the Internet bypasses the backbones. So if you are saying "fast lanes" are peering connections and they are wrong then you do not know how the Internet works.

Does this ruling pertain to Internet companies charging more for extra use, or just for throttling speeds?

I don't think anyone beyond the FCC knows yet.

Everyone likes to bring up Netflix, but their traffic was not throttled in the traffic shaping sense. The Netflix traffic was treated like all peering traffic. The problem was that the peering connection did not have enough bandwidth to some ISPs. There was a lot of finger pointing. Probably some lying. But what most people don't understand is that Verizon may have been telling the truth.

At the time Netflix was using Cogent to deliver their traffic over peering links. Cogent prides itself in their peering. Most (all?) of their peering agreements are settlement free. That means that the traffic they send is about the same amount they receive for that link. When this happens both parties call it even and do not charge for traffic delivery since it would zero out. I think what happened is that when Cogrnt got Netflix as a customer they figured it wouldn't mess with their existing peering agreements. That didn't hold up when Netflix increased resolution and became more popular. Cogent really didn't want to upgrade the peering links because it might mess up the balance and they would have to pay the other network (the ISP) to deliver their packets.

When Netflix fully understood that Cogent could or would no longer properly deliver their traffic they dumped them and went with another national network or setup their own peering agreements.

In anycase all this is a normal and fundamental part of the way the Internet works. No traffic was pulled out and degraded by the ISP and therefore has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.